Mirrors of Our Maker

Does Belief in God Fit with What We Know About Ourselves?

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him...

GENESIS 1:27

When I was about ten, I overheard someone tell how my great-great-grandfather had committed suicide by hanging himself in his barn. Of course I had never met this man, but the fact that one of my direct ancestors had thought life so bad that he preferred to be killed by his own hand often disturbed me. At that age I couldn't fathom the complexities of life that would ever bring someone to such a point.

   Not until much later, as I sat in a discussion on the "human predicament" in a literature class, did I really begin to grasp the hopeless confusion that being human can cause. As humans we long for meaning but are unsure of whether real meaning is even possible. We have great potential for good but

Page 50

also great potential for cruelty that persists in shocking degree despite all social progress.

   As humans we long for connection with others but are often frustrated and disappointed in our interactions with family and friends. We have a capacity for great joy but also for mind-searing grief and pain. We long for immortality but live with the knowledge that someday we will die.

No society has been able to abolish human sadness, no political system can deliver us from the pain of living, from our fear of death, our thirst for the absolute. EUGENE IONESCO (Theater of the Absurd playwright)1

  As human we often know the right things to do but wind up doing the opposite, despite all the guilt and consequences. Our imagination can fathom accomplishing great things, but many times we are trapped in circumstances over which we have little control and find it a challenge just to get through the day. And all for what?

   What situations in life cause you to think about the paradoxes involved in being human?

The Missing Piece?

After putting words to the dilemma in my literature class, I realized that I had often unconsciously railed against some of these same things — attending a family reunion where everyone seemed to be talking but no one seemed to be saying anything, watching forlorn people at a carnival chase the next thrill, visiting a rest home where pictures of proud, beautiful people hung in rank-smelling rooms inhabited by bent and broken shadows.

   As I read more widely, I discovered that the struggle against the contradictions and complexities of humanity runs throughout both modern and ancient literature. These paradoxes have confounded writers throughout the ages and caused many to stagger to the conclusion that the human dilemma is outside comprehension and hope.

   But then I encountered a few authors who seemed to point to a tiny shaft of light that although didn't illuminate all the answers, at least gave the questions a different shape. What if all the contradictions were not just meaningless paradoxes in nature but were meant to point us to something

Page 51

beyond? Could introducing God into the equation begin to make sense of the puzzle of humanity?

   When we are searching for truth, it makes sense to examine the one thing we can reasonably hope to know best: ourselves. In my own search the evidence from nature first persuaded me of the existence of a God, but the evidence from human experience confirmed this and led me to a deeper conviction of what that God must be like. Specifically, I found five human characteristics that cry out for belief in God.

   Have you noticed characteristics in humankind that seem to point to the existence of God? If so, explain.

The Miracles of Our Minds

Human minds appear to be uniquely designed to understand the world around us. If we are simply a highly evolved collection of molecules responding to stimuli, the amazing correspondence between the development of our minds and the laws of the universe is unfathomable.

   "Scientists themselves," acknowledges physicist Paul Davies, "normally take it for granted that we live in a rational, ordered cosmos subject to precise laws that can be uncovered by human reasoning. Yet why this should be so remains a tantalizing mystery. Why should human beings have the ability to discover and understand the principles on which the universe runs?"²

   Consider our ability to do higher math or to understand the intricacies of an atom. Some would say this ability, which no other species in the animal kingdom even comes close to possessing, simply developed through natural selection in the evolution process, which brings about change in a species based on survival benefits. But in the real world can we really imagine that being able to understand these things would give enough of a survival benefit to warrant its selection?

   As scientist John Barrow writes in Theories of Everything, "Why should our cognitive processes have turned themselves to such an extravagant quest as understanding of the entire Universe? ... None of the sophisticated ideas involved appear to offer any selective advantage to be exploited during

Page 52

the pre-conscious period of our evolution."³

   From a naturalistic point of view I found the remarkable effectiveness of the human mind inexplicable. But when I considered the possibility that we and the universe may have been created by a rational God who chose to create human beings in his image, the fog seemed to clear. If this was the case, it made sense that our minds would run along the same lines as the laws of the universe — since the human mind would be a minuscule reflection of the mind of God.

   What do you think about the naturalistic explanation for the effectiveness of our minds?

   If you had to come up with a survival benefit for the human capacity to understand higher math, what would some possibilities be? Explain whether you believe any of these benefits would warrant selection in a preconscious period of evolution.

   Do you think that "unreasonable effectiveness of our minds" points to the possibility of a Creator? Why or why not?

The Likelihood of Loveliness

Another mystifying characteristic of human existence that seemed to me to point to God is our appreciation of certain "lovely" things — the fragrance of a rose, the splendor of a sunset, the captivating tones of music. It almost seemed as if much in the universe was created expressly for our enjoyment.

The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in uncovering the structure of the physical world... is a hint of the presence of the Creator, given to us creatures who are made in the divine image. JOHN POLKINGHORNE (physicist and theologian)4

   While I could see that some of the things we appreciate could be said to have evolutionary benefit — for instance, that we often find those of the opposite sex pleasing to look at — this explanation was insufficient to account for the majority of lovely things. "The poverty of an objectivistic account," as John Polkinghorne writes, "is made only too clear when we consider the mystery of music. From a scientific point of view, it is nothing but vibrations in the air, impinging on the eardrums and stimulating neural currents in the brain. How does it come about that this banal sequence of temporal activity has the power to

Page 53

speak to our hearts of an eternal beauty."⁵

   For me, it came down to whether it is more reasonable to believe that our appreciation of beauty is just a meaningless evolutionary fluke or that this might be an eternal pointer to the existence of a Creator who also appreciates beauty and lovingly created these things for our pleasure.

   Think of four things you consider "beautiful," and list any possible natural explanations for your appreciation of each of them.

   Do you believe that our appreciation of beauty points to the possibility of God? Why or why not?

The Puzzle of Our Personalness

Another characteristic that cried out to me for belief was the "personalness" of humanity. As seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist Blaise Pascal marveled, despite our insignificance in physical scale, we are greater than all the stars because we alone can know about them and ourselves. We alone are self-aware.

   Regardless of how much we admire the intricacies of animal interaction, it is impossible not to see the wide gap that separates us from all other creatures. We alone are capable of higher thinking and communicating. We alone possess the capability of making a wide range of conscious choices in behavior. We alone develop elaborate religious, legal and historic traditions. We alone invent and manipulate advanced technologies. We alone write volumes exploring the questions of what and why and how.

[Naturalism] offers what professes to be a full account of our mental behaviour but this account, on inspection, leaves no room for the acts of knowing or insight on which the whole value of our thinking, as a means to truth, depends. C.S. LEWIS6

   Many scientists attempt to tell us that the observation that humanity is personal and different from the rest of the animal kingdom is only an illusion. All people and animals, they maintain, are simply combinations of molecular processes responding to stimuli in the only way they can. The problem with this theory, however, is that if humans are just a collection of molecular processes programmed to respond in certain ways with no real choice, then how can we, as programmed creatures, presume to say that what we believe to be

Page 54

true about reality is even meaningful?

  I found this concept confusing when I first encountered it. But when I thought about it, it made sense. In these scientists' view, aren't the scientists themselves just a collection of molecules? And how can it make sense for any collection of molecules, responding to stimuli in the only way they can, to propose a meaningful explanation of the real nature of themselves? These scientists' own view undermines their right to hold it.

The hypothesis for the origin of consciousness in Darwinian evolution would not account for the highest levels of consciousness in Homo sapiens.... The uniqueness of our experienced self has not been given an acceptable materialist explanation.... Since materialist solutions fail to account for our experienced uniqueness, I have proposed... that it is necessary to postulate a supernatural creation for each human self, which is a mystery beyond science. JOHN C. ECCLES (winner of 1963 Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine)7

   Despite their own outlook, these scientists live each day as if they were personal beings, making real conscious choices — not just responding to stimuli — and as if they were capable of discovering real truth about themselves and the world around them. Ironically, we can't escape our own personalness even when we deny it.

   So if we are personal beings, I found myself asking, where did this "personalness" come from? Is it realistic to think that an impersonal universe gave rise through random chance to such a complex consciousness? What would be the evolutionary benefit to such personalness — which introduces the phenomenon of suicide, completely contrary to the survival instinct? On the other hand, isn't it possible that our own personalness points to the existence of a personal, self-aware God?

   What do you  think about the statement that humans are personal beings?

   If humanity is personal, do you think the naturalistic or the supernatural view best accounts for this? Why?

The Mystery of Morality

After the evening in the university chapel I was an atheist for about two hours. As pitiful as this may sound, that was as long as I could hold to that belief system. One of the major reasons was an unshakable conviction in the existence of a true morality.

Page 55

   I could not have explained it cohesively that night. But something deep inside of me told me that "good" is better than "bad" and "love" is better than "hate," and I sensed that that had to mean that something exists beyond ourselves. I have thought about this much more extensively since that night and have come to believe it even more strongly.

   This conviction was particularly reinforced recently when I read a passage by philosopher Bertrand Russell explaining his atheistic beliefs:

That man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve any individual life beyond that grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system... only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.⁸

   These words made it clear to me that the atheistic view leaves no room for a true morality. Yet in another work Russell attempts to give value to our moral sense: "It is these things that make the unique importance of man, and it is of these things that each generation in turn is the trustee. To hand on the treasure, not diminished, but increased, is our supreme duty to posterity."⁹ But according to Russell's own view, what really would be the difference between right and wrong? What motivation would there be to choose right? What meaning would this even have? And what would be the sense in speaking to an "accidental collocation of atoms destined for extinction" about duty?

   On the other hand, if a higher being exists, this does give a foundation for belief in a true moral duty. If we are creations of this being, it makes sense that our moral code would be based in this being's character. The supernatural view introduces the possibility of our being more than just a "collocation of atoms" and the prospect that we may possess real significance, we may live beyond the grave, and what we do really may matter.

Other Explanations for Our Moral Sense

   Those who argue our moral sense does not reflect a true right and wrong, and so doesn't point to a Creator, usually explain our moral sense in one of two ways.

Page 56

   1. Cultural norms. Some say our moral sense is just a set of cultural norms passed down from parent to child. But two major problems exist with this explanation.

   The moral codes of all societies throughout recorded history are amazingly similar, despite incredible cultural diversity.¹⁰

   Those who hold this view have to be willing to say, without reservation, that no activity is intrinsically wrong and such things as bigotry, murder, rape and child abuse are just a matter of cultural preference and would be OK to practice in another society. This runs so contrary to something deep inside humanity that most of us, when it comes down to it, can't accept it.

   2. Herd instincts. Others say our moral sense is a set of "herd instincts" that have developed in the human animal over time, encouraging peaceful communal living that aids in survival. But problems exist with this explanation as well.

   We all know what it is like to have an instinct to do something. It is a strong urge we feel, like the urge to eat when we are hungry. But our moral sense is different; it often tells us to do things we do not feel like doing — such as to refrain from lying even when lying would help us.

   Our moral sense often judges between which instincts we should follow. For example, if we see someone in trouble, we may experience two instincts — one to stop and help and one to run the opposite direction. It is our moral sense that judges between these two and tells us that we should help even if our urge for self-preservation is strong. And even though we may choose not to follow our moral sense, deep down we always know we should have helped.

   With this explanation as well, we would have to accept without reservation that no true right and wrong exists.

   Do you think our moral sense points to the existence of God? Why or why not?

Eternity in Our Hearts

Every once in a great while I stumble into one of those moments in life — an almost-perfect moment that I long to hold on to, an almost-glorious moment saturated with a beauty so near it makes my soul ache, an almost-wondrous moment that explodes with joy because I know that this is finally nearing life as it should be, but also throbs with pain because I know it is life as it

Page 57

never really will be, and that even this moment is already gone.

He has also set eternity in the hearts of men... ECCLESIASTES 3:11

   The ache of wanting to capture a sunset. That catch-in-your-throat, I-don't-ever-want-to-let-go feeling when your two-year-old gives you a hug. That instant of nostalgia that you get in the middle of a quiet evening with close friends.

   For me, such almost-moments accentuate to another great mystery of life. Everyone I talk to seems to possess a yearning for something beyond what they experience day to day. A profound thirst for connection, perfection and immortality seems to dwell in each of us. It seems none of us can escape the notion that we were made for something much more than we currently possess.

   I can find no natural explanation for this. Why would we develop hunger for impossibilities? Why would our hearts become set on an elusive ideal so foreign to us it is impossible to even articulate? Where do religious yearnings come from, and why does a belief in the afterlife persist in almost every society? All other appetites have a corresponding reality to fulfill them, but not this one, unless — unless, as I have become convinced, there is a reality beyond what we can see and touch. For this hunger seems to whisper of paradise and eternity and unimaginable beauty.

You awaken us to delight in Your praise, for You made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You. ST. AUGUSTINE (fourth-century theologian)11

   Have you experienced these kinds of impressions? If so, when?

   Do you agree that these may be indications that there is something beyond the reality we can see and touch? Why or why not?

The Need for More

Even if the information we receive from nature and ourselves points to the possibility of a higher being, if we stop here we are left with many questions and much confusion. From our personalness we can deduce that the higher being is personal. From the composition of our minds we can deduce that this being appreciates beauty and rational thought. From the insistence of the moral code we can deduce that this being is very

Page 58

interested in how people behave toward one another.

   But we are still left wondering who the higher being is, why this being created us and our world, and what this being's relationship is to us now. Even if we are led to the belief that a higher being exists, we are hopelessly lost at this point unless this higher being somehow gives us a way to find out more. And it is not unfathomable that the higher being would do just that if it wants to be known by us.

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. ISAIAH 40:28

   This is exactly where Christianity and many other religions claim to come in. They teach that the higher being does want to be known and has given more specific revelation. Christianity claims this revelation is the Bible.

   In my own search I first came to the determination that whether Christianity was true or not, I believed in some kind of a Creator. Then I couldn't help but notice that this Creator seemed to share at least some characteristics with the God described in the Bible. And this sent me back to take a close look at the Bible to see if I could trust it as a revelation from God.

   Of course this process wasn't nearly as tidy as it sounds. I jumped back and forth in my thinking and took many detours and loops. But I kept coming back to the solid assurance that yes, I did believe in God, and yes, many of the things I saw in myself and in the world pointed to a God very like the one I had learned about in Sunday school. And this kept prodding me to examine the claims of Scripture, as we will do in the next chapter.

   What do you think about the statement that if a supreme being exists, it is reasonable to believe this being might find a way to communicate more about itself to us?

   In what ways do the characteristics in humanity and in nature discussed in the last few chapters point to a God resembling the one of the Bible?

Page 59

   Do you believe the natural or supernatural view offers the best explanation for human nature? Why?

   Do you believe Christianity offers viable explanations for the peculiarities we see in human experience and for this reason deserves a closer look? Why or why not?

Digging Deeper

   Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (New York: Macmillan, 1952). This book offers the most perceptive discussion of the evidence for God based on the morality of humanity I have found. It is the classic most people refer to when discussing this topic.

   He Is There and He Is Not Silent by Francis A. Schaeffer (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1972). Another classic and one of Schaeffer's easier books to read, this book serves as a great introduction to Christian answers to the questions raised in this and the previous two chapters.

Chapter Six  ||  Table of Contents